We started by pointing out that the choice of D and R as such is a choice between shame and horror. We qualified that by admitting that there may be reasons in certain isolated cases to vote D or R; such as for a principled RINO like Ron Paul.
We pointed out that, both Parties being evil, the American genius for the last half-century has been to seek to bring about political stalemate in Washington. Today, that implies the need to vote against the Republican Party.
The Republicans have
- waged a war without sufficient cause
- lied about it
- negotiated secret deals that reduce American sovereignty
- passed laws to dismantle the Bill of Rights (and here).
- made a mockery of well-meaning but misguided Evangelical supporters
We saw that an insight into the Republican problem may be found by looking to its origins: Abraham Lincoln, possibly the greatest war criminal in the history of Christendom to his day.
We saw that the case against Saddam Hussein is both exaggerated and hypocritical.
It turns out that there may be more unjust deaths by W’s hand than Lincoln and Hussein combined.
Lincoln is praised, but Hussein is villified– though not by Reagan, who propped him up handsomely with plenty of military hardware, including “weapons of mass destruction.”
We saw how the rhetoric of “fascism” has been abused; we could have gone on to point out that people that actually could rightly be called fascists, such as Sean Hannity, have been waging their own rhetorical war, to the effect that every issue has been all but neutralized in the mind of the American right wing, except that of war-mongering.
Time ran out: there is so much more that needs to be said. No, there is time: our problems are not going to be solved in one election. The imperial election isn’t for another two years anyway, and that’s the only one that really counts, right?
My thoughts…
The Republicans have
* waged a war without sufficient cause
-If you hold to just-war theory, which many don’t.
* lied about it
-This liberal smear tactic is a lie in itself.
* negotiated secret deals that reduce American sovereignty
-You provided no documentation for your super-highway claims. Sounds more like a lot of infowars-style conspiracy nonsense.
* passed laws to dismantle the Bill of Rights (and here).
-I carefully studied the Military Commissions Act and can only conclude that you, Mr. Butler, and others blew that way out of proportion. You read things into the Act that simply weren’t there. The whole suspension of habeas corpus towards American citizens is found no where in the Act. An argument from ignorance is the only way to get what you want out of the Act.
* made a mockery of well-meaning but misguided Evangelical supporters
-This is hardly substantiated either. As I mentioned in the comments, it was more hyperbole than anything else.
Good article by Paul Craig Roberts. If Saddam should be tried and executed for war-crimes, how much more Bush and company?
Razzendahcuben –
On just war theory. We do hold to biblical just war theory. If Caesar doesn’t, too bad for him; he will face King Jesus on judgment day.
On the NAFTA Superhighway. Must we do your Google searches for you? Try this or this or this or this.
On the Bill of Rights. The Military Commissions Act is just one way the Republicans have undermined the Bill of Rights. But on the Act itself, you seem to think that because it does not have a clause that says, “this Act hereby removes a citizen’s right of habeas corpus,” that it is not in the Act. Read the definitions section again and my analysis. If that is not enough, do a search for Constitutional scholars who agree with this analysis.
On Evangelical supporters of the regime. You claim hyperbole, but offer no argument.
On your accusation that Mr. Harris is lying. We appreciate those who disagree with us and welcome refutations. Mere disagreement without arguments or facts are uninteresting, however. And do not accuse either of us of lying again without being certain that is indeed what we have done (consult WLC QQ. 143 – 145 for the confessional stand on lying). We are both members of OPC churches and you can take such accusations up with our Sessions. But if you are not willing to do so, please refrain from posting such slanders again. Our policy is to approve almost every comment, but we will not approve any such comments by you in the future.
But since you have said Mr. Harris is lying, either demonstrate the lie or publically ask him to forgive you.
Thank you for the response, Mr. Butler.
I disagree with your reader-as-fact-checker expectations; I believe the writer is responsible for documenting his claims.
In your post you write that the Republicans have “waged a war without sufficient cause.” Elsewhere you have written, “Two wars have been waged that cannot be defended by Christian just war theory.” Pardon me, but I don’t consider merely stating something as simultaneously justifying it, therefore I find it hypocritical that you would criticize me for merely stating my opinion.
Concerning the MCA.
“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(1) (Section 7)
If you go back to Sec. 948a. Definitions, you read this:
(1) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
Habeas corpus is a right of American citizens, not a right of terrorists. The act is clearly talking about terrorists and supporters of terrorists as unlawful enemy combatants in the definitions (948a. 7. A, B, C). This is contrasted with enemy soldiers who do operate within a State (948a. 5. A, B, C). Nevertheless, even if a US citizen were found supporting terrorists they could not be subjected to a military commission.
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
I also found this great article from the National Review that I think you would benefit from. (I know, I know—Rumsfeld is probably paying this guy off, but bear with me.)
Thus the only way you could possibly conclude that the executive branch has the right to detain US citizens without the right to habeas corpus is if you read definitions 948a. 7. and ignore everything around it.
On Evangelical supporters of the regime. You claim hyperbole, but offer no argument.
Your post is the argument:
Apart from being the patsy of the GOP political machine, an even greater concern is that Christian leaders line up at the federal feeding trough looking for a few scraps of mammon to be thrown their way through these “faith-based initiativesâ€. For many leading faith-based political activists, “Jesus is King†has become just a PR gimmick. It may be that the truth of the matter is that, in some cases, “Cash is King.†And we have it on good authority that no one can serve two masters.
Such hyerbolic language reveals more about your hatred towards the Republican party than anything else. I am against faith-based initiatives, but broad brushing the vast majority of evangelical leaders as GOP patsies that love money is ridiculous.
Finally, I never accused Mr. Harris of lying. I did accuse him of employing a liberal smear tactic—and one that has no basis in fact. At best the liberals can argue that the Bush administration acted out of ignorance, but even this I would argue is false. Before the invasion of Iraq, virtually every liberal (and countries such as France and Germany) agreed that Saddam was a threat requiring something more than YET ANOTHER worthless UN resolution. The US ‘erred’ (according to France et al) in that it did not wait for UN approval in attacking Iraq. Shucks.
Anyway, Saddam’s weapons programs are very well documented. Even the calculations used in developing the weapons were released online, only to be taken down amidst the realization that other nations could use such data.
Keith
Keith– just a few comments.
Earlier you attributed one of MB’s posts to me; now you blame MB for one of my posts. Hint: observe the initials that attach to each post.
(Of course we agree substantially on every point anyhow; but we do specialize a bit; and accuracy is always to be commended.)
“I disagree with your reader-as-fact-checker expectations; I believe the writer is responsible for documenting his claims.”
Minor point: Wrong use of the concept “fact-checker.” That applies to pre-pub editing, not to a policy of laying everything out in view. Major point: this is a blog, not a compendious Handbuch. Some things will be documented; others will be taken as common knowledge; in others the reader will be expected to “look it up himself” or trust us– with the understanding that it is always fair to ask. But it is not fair or courteous to assume that where something is not there and then documented, it is therefore false or unsubstantiable.
“Pardon me, but I don’t consider merely stating something as simultaneously justifying it, therefore I find it hypocritical that you would criticize me for merely stating my opinion.”
First, the burden of proof is on the war-monger, not the critic. Thus, you can overcome my claim by providing the evidence that just-war theory has been satisfied; but not by my outcry that it has not been satisfied.
Second: you might ask. I thought (perhaps too optimistically) that that particular assertion was too obvious to deserve a belabored explanation.
Third: this is after all our blog. We don’t want to degenerate into stating unsubstantiated opinions. But if we do on occasion, this doesn’t give the whole world the right to do the same on our property.
“Such hyerbolic language…
“broad brushing the vast majority of evangelical leaders as GOP patsies that love money is ridiculous.”
His statement was, “an even greater concern is that Christian leaders line up…” This does not imply that all leaders do so (nor even: a vast majority). Please find your freshman logic book and review the chapter on ordinary language.
I am greatly relieved that you are not accusing me of lying. However, you might be a bit more sensitive to how your words could be interpreted.
Now to the matter: the assertion, “Iraq had weapons of mass destruction” is the minor premise. I believe even Bush has admitted that this was wrong (remember his oval-office joke about it?). Moreover, no one has produced positive evidence. Third, when he did have them, they came from Reagan (not sure if you are old enough to know that name, but many of our readers will recognize that as President #40).
The major premise, “The US has the right to wage war on any nation that has a weapon of mass destruction” is never spelled out, though necessary to the argument. It is not spelled out, because patently absurd once stated.
German and French opinion fails to sway me.
I’ll leave my colleague to address the specifics about the MCA.
That I could be associated with a “liberal smear tactic” would be found quite amusing by many people that know me.
Thank you for your response, Mr. Harris.
Your points are taken easily—who would disagree that you own this blog and that you will not necessarily document every last word? All I’m asking is that you or Mr. Butler be consistent in your charges. In your opinion, just war theory is true. In my opinion, it isn’t. You didn’t argue your position, neither did I. I see that as fair.
The burden of proof is on me if I accept just war theory, but I don’t. This is analogous to the atheist demanding “proof” for God’s existence according to his standard of proof that rejects God a priori. I will not play his game, nor will I play yours.
As a note, I would be interested in a defense of just war theory from either one of you.
His statement was, “an even greater concern is that Christian leaders line up…†This does not imply that all leaders do so (nor even: a vast majority). Please find your freshman logic book and review the chapter on ordinary language.
Why wouldn’t I assume that he’s talking about the majority of Christian leaders? Practical language always takes shortcuts. Perhaps you should be more sensitive as to how words can be interpreted.
Nevertheless, this is a red herring. Your language, along with Mr. Butler, is hyperbolic to the point of being obonoxious. After reading most of your political commentary I get the impression that you left infowars.com in a hot rage and let that venom pour out onto the keyboard.
I would be less inclined to think this if you posited an alternative to our eeeeeevil government, but instead my thoughts wander back to the time I heard Ralph Nader speak—err, whine—for an hour, never offering a solution, just pointing out everything that didn’t match his utopian socialist ideal. I am curious as to what grand reconstructionist scheme you have rescue civilization.
Concerning WMD’s, I do believe that Iraq had some that were shipped to Syria. How else can you explain the prolonged period of time in which Saddam absolutely REFUSED to allow inspectors in? Was he merely taunting the world, asking for sanctions and war just for the heck of it?
I am amazed by the naivete of the liberals. They sit there and casually dismiss pre-invasion Iraq with this arrogant “hindsight is 20/20” mindset when in reality Saddam could have attacked someone by now. Based on documents released to the public, I think he would have a serious weapons program going on by this point. I already mentioned that the documents for these programs were released—right down to the calculations, which were so specific as to how to develop these weapons that the documents were removed in fear that other countries would use them. And lets not forget that virtually every big-name liberal in Congress agreed that Saddam was a serious threat at some point before the Iraq invasion.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
That’s not even one of the better quotes from our “lick your finger and stick it to the wind” friends.
No, I do not recall Bush ever saying he lied about WMD’s. He did admit that the CIA provided some bad intelligence, but that’s a far cry from saying that Saddam was not a real threat.
I also agree that our government has provided weapons in the past to our current enemies. Big mistake. But how on earth to go from, “Gee, that was a stupid decision 20 years ago” to “let’s not do anything about our current enemies today”?!? Not really seeing the logic behind this.
You were correct in another post when you mentioned that the war on terror is on an abstract entity, not an actual nation. What amazes me is that you think this is license to lean back, throw up our feet, and just blow it off. Incredible. Apparently the terrorists will just leave us alone if we ignore them!
(Maybe you do have a plan for dealing with terrorism, but you certainly haven’t stated it.)
Rather, we must find the nations that aid and help these terrorists and work with them. If they refuse to cease support and shelter, and if they are a threat in and of themselves, we impose sanctions. If problems escalate, we attack them. Its a pre-emptive strike. Welcome to war.
Keith
More on MCA and what good it will do to be a US citizen:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html
re just war theory. Before getting into a long, involved historical and theological thread on this subject, I submit that everyone must have some just war theory (even if it differs in detail from Augustine’s or Thomas’) if he accepts these premises:
1. Thou shalt not kill
2. (Nonetheless) there are times that the civil magistrate may/must kill, without violating the law of God.
3. Killing is not automatically righteous just because the magistrate does it.
It seems to me that every thinking Christian must accept those three premises; that these imply that a positive justification is needed for non-culpable killing; and hence the burden of proof is always on the one justifying the killing.
I agree that Jose Padilla’s detainment is a huge violation of civil rights. The MCA, however, does not exonerate the US government for their actions towards Padilla. (Even though it does now make Padilla an unlawful enemy combatant—which I would agree is abuse of ex post facto.)
I encourage you to examine the definitions in the MCA. I think I laid out very clearly why the outcry by liberals and libertarians is unfounded hysteria. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly agree that our government is corrupt enough to restrict habeas corpus no matter what the law says. And that is scary.
By the way, I linked to a National Review article in my comments on the MCA and the link only leads to this post. Strange. But here is the actual link.
Concerning just war theory, I do not agree with “Thou shalt not kill,” but rather “Thou shalt not murder.” I do agree that those wanting to kill must provide a positive justification. Your version of just war theory, however, goes far beyond the aforementioned premises, and it is those premises that I reject. Nevertheless, I do not wish to sound obstinate. I am not an expert on just war theory. (That goes without saying.) I’ll look forward to a more in-depth essay on just war theory in the future.
Cuben Razzendah– couple quick points of clarification: 1. You say “it is those premises that I reject.” You mean the three I listed in comment #8? 2. What is my “version of just war theory” that “goes far beyond the aforementioned premises” (I thought the problem was that I hadn’t explained my theory of just war)?
H Tim,
When I think of just war theory, I think of the version defended by Bahnsen in his talk show Q&A (available for free at Covenant Media Foundation), which goes far beyond the three premises you wrote. I can only assume that your version is very similar to his.
Keith
Always dangerous to assume!
OK, I’m going to go step by step here, real slow.
First, ratsach doesn’t really mean “murder.” It is more like the English “slay,” which has an ambiguity as to murderous intent: something like “strike down.” By prohibiting striking someone down or slaying him, it is tantamount to forbidding murder. But the semantic range itself is a bit more general. Note that the word is used of unintentional slaying in Deut. 4:42 and 19:3, and Nu 35:11; and killing by just vengeance in Num 35:27.
Thus, the AV was I think correct to keep the more neutral “kill” in the commandment, leaving it to casuistry to unpack the circumstances; NIV went a little too far I think.
Now, getting back to the three premises in post #8: they do not really constitute a just war theory; they only prove that a just war theory is necessary.
However, they are sufficient to show that it will not be good enough to retort “I don’t agree with your just war theory.” To defend him, one must give a set of criteria that W has met.
W has given so many “reasons” for his war against Iraq that I’m not even sure I will be able to list them all, or in proper sequence. It has variously been, that Saddam Hussein (1) has violated UN resolutions, (2) aided and abetted terrorists, (3) stock-piled WMDs which he plans to use against us, (4) well, at least stock-piled WMDs, (5) been really mean to his political enemies, or (6) anyway, Iraq deserves the kind of democracy that only we can give them.
As each reason was abandoned, I never heard an explanation or apology directed either to Saddam or to us.
Anyone with experience with human nature can only conclude: we are dealing with a liar here. He has a conclusion in search of a justification.
It is therefore clear that he has not ascended to any criterion of just war; he does not even pretend to do so.
QED. Let’s save Augustine for when we really need him.
Hugo Grotius is really the father of international law and has done the most thinking on just war. It’s pretty biblical as well.
I think we can easily agree that the war against Iraq was without sufficient cause without buying into “just war” theory, the paradox of “international law,” the liberal criticisms of the war, or the libertarian criticism of the war.
We can simply reject the stated reasons as insufficient, namely because:
(1) a country having weapons (including dangerous and deadly ones) is the country’s right: to wit, they bear the power of the sword.
(2) The alleged weapons were not a threat to us.
(3) It is foolish to maintain an alliance with the nations of Israel or Kuwait, or to wage wars to protect them, and thus the threat to them was an insufficient cause.
(4) Even if the UN were a legitimate government of governments, it did not authorize the war.
(5) The oppression of citizenry of a country has never been a sufficient cause for waging war against the country.
(6) The link to terrorists was tenuous at the time.
(7) Democracy is a lower, not a higher form of government, as contrasted with monarchy.
(8) The military destruction of Iraq was not challenging enough to impress a country like China.
(9) The expected effect on the price of oil was an increase, not a decrease.
(10) Only Keynsian economics suggests that warfare would help our economy.
(11) There was no other foreseen benefit to our country.
(12) Scripture does not require that we fight such wars.
-Turretinfan
I should refine one point. TJH wisely noted that “everyone must have some just war theory” (assuming they accept the three premises he presented). I fully agree.
When I note above that one need not accept “just war” theory, I mean that one need not accept any particular one of the many theories:
1) Because the Law of God did not require the war,
2) Because the war (even if morally indifferent) was not a good idea from virtually any perspective, and
3) Because the stated reasons for the war fall short of being good reasons.
-Turretinfan
Good work TF. You do indeed follow in the footsteps of your namesake.
It looks like Gonzi is now explicitly denying that habeas corpus is a constitutional right. Apparently, he grants he can’t arbitrarily suspend it — where it exists! But if it doesn’t exist to begin with, he doesn’t need to suspend it!
Wake up people. The noose is tightening.
You may want to dig deeper. The AG was correcting Specter’s mischaracterization of the Rasul v. Bush case. The AG correctly noted that the Supreme Court was addressing the statutory right to habeus corpus, not the constitutional right to habeus corpus. Specter incorrectly and stubbornly refused to acknowledge his mistake, and insisted that he was right.
He did play a neat rhetorical trick on the AG with his comment on habeus, but what the AG was saying was that right to habeus is implicit, not explicit in the Constitution.
The noose certainly is tightening … but not in this particular scenario.
Here’s a link to the case that they were arguing about:
http://www.cdi.org/news/law/rasul-decision.pdf
-Turretinfan
TF –
At the risk of seeming to always to take a stand against your comments (we agree on many more things than not), I don’t find your defense of Speedy G convincing.
You write, “but what the AG was saying was that right to habeus is implicit, not explicit in the Constitution.” Where does he say or imply that the right to habeus corpus is implicit? Here is the transcript.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.†It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
What is the point of Speedy saying this if is not denying hc to all citizens? Was he just being lawyerly? Of course he was right about the wording of the 5th Amendment, but why bother being so pedantic? It would be like somebody saying, “the Bill of Rights does not guarantee that bloggers have a right to publish what they want, it says only that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of the press.”
The Military Commisions Act, used immediately by the Justice Department, allows for hc to be stripped away from citizens if they are deemed illegal enemy combatants. Speedy’s comments about the 5th Amendment fit right in with this.
I amen Tim’s exhortation: wake up folks.
Dear MRB,
I’m sure we agree (in general) out to three sigmas.
The reason for my limited support for the AG in this circumstances, is that (in a portion of the discussion that your transcript does not include – a portion maybe two or three questions before the part where your transcript begins) the AG referred to “the Constitutional right” as opposed to saying “a Constitutional right” or “any Constitutional right” when distinguishing the Constitutional right from the statutory right.
Furthermore, he states “no express grant” and then explains that he meant “the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.—
To me, it seems like he is being lawyer-like and carefully distinguishing between express and implied.
As I said, though, my comments are limited to defense of the AG against what looks to me like some dishonest rhetorical tricks by Specter. I agree that the government is getting stronger, and our rights vis-a-vis the government fewer, in general.
-Turretinfan
Bush and seven of his cronies (incl. Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld) made at least 935 false statements in the two years following 9/11 about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
These were often made before key votes, or at other “accidently” opportune times.
It is also not the case that everyone in the intelligence community or other Federal Govt agencies were similarly deluded. Not at all.
I heard the report by the Center for Public Integrity on BBC today.